Quebec Communist State

Tag Archives: Alan Stang

This article may be a little bit “jagged” because it has been written and rewritten since 2012, and finally published now. It was first drafted when Justin Trudeau was running for the Liberal leadership. It was revised when he began to campaign for the last federal election. And it’s been touched up again. Very hard to get a smooth feel to it, writing it in coffee shops on the free wifi, surrounded by dozens of other gabbing customers. So tonight, I’m finishing it. It’s as done as it’s going to get for now. I hope you get something out of it, nonetheless. (I will fix the shifted html tables another day…. God willing. That’s one of the horrors of WordPress: not compatible with other basic editing languages. And though the tables all work in WordPress installed in xampp, they don’t work here online, who knows why.)

The Real Justin Trudeau: Red Like His Daddy

Please notice that Justin Trudeau, while running for his father’s former job, supports referendums for Quebec to “secede”. However, as we know from the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois (PQ) (in English exclusively at this web site, see the sidebar for the free download), Quebec is not becoming “sovereign”, it is becoming Communist. The referendums of 1980 and 1995 were precisely to get this done. See in particular my feature post, Singing Tomorrows, to make this clear.

The referendums are a front and a grave deception in which Trudeau Junior, from a family of Castro-worshippers, is a willing shill:

He also brought to the forefront the position of his New Democratic adversary to the effect that a simple majority (50% + 1 vote) would be recognized by Ottawa in case of a refrendum on sovereignty by affirming that it would only seek to win “political points”.

“Mr. Mulcair has chosen to return to this issue to make political gains in Quebec,” affirmed Mr. [Justin] Trudeau. The reality is that Quebecers need a new premier who is aware of the reality of the challenges and [capable of] pulling the whole country together.”

During the first leaders’ debate, last week, the question of referendum clarity led to a biting exchange between Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau, the latter accusing his rival of leading a party which threatens national unity because of his position.

By “national unity” is meant the complete restructuring of all of Canada on the model of the EUSSR after a “Yes” in Red-led Quebec.

The fact that Justin Trudeau supports the referendum deception proves that he is as much a Communist as his father was. In fact, his father’s becoming Prime Minister and the Parti Québécois being created, were both part of a single scheme hatched by Pierre Trudeau and other federal cabinet ministers from Quebec in the “Liberal” government of Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson in 1967. (Search for Pearson’s FBI file at this web site.) Pierre Trudeau’s end of the scheme was to “negotiate” the restructuring of Canada with his Communist friend René Lévesque, who set up the PQ solely on the orders of Pierre Trudeau and the “secret committee” of Power Corporation. The two elements — another prime minister under full control, and a Communist party masked as merely “separatist” were created as a single mechanism to overthrow Canada.

Subscribe to this blog and you will soon learn how veiled Communist and co-founder of the Communist PQ, Guy Bertrand, now plans to force the “secession” of Quebec directly into structural Communism (i.e., Moscow-style expanded and consolidated metropolitan REGIONS (to replace the nation-state) as described by Communist sociologist Morris Zeitlin in “Planning is Socialism’s Trademark,” an article in the November 8, 1975 issue of the Daily World, the journal of the Communist Party of the USA.)

Toronto Sun’s Peter Worthington whitewashed Justin Trudeau’s Communist father to Justin’s political advantage[/caption]On Tuesday night, October 12th, 2012 in the Liberal riding of Papineau in Montreal, federal member of parliament (by which I mean the non-sovereign parliament after the 1982 coup d’état by his father), Justin Trudeau, held a rally to announce his bid for the Liberal leadership.

Press and media, notably the Washington-based Huffington Post, appeared to be aiming at another “Trudeau coronation” like that of Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1968. Huffington hard-sold the inexperienced and unaccomplished 41-year-old Trudeau knock-off the way the father had been sold in 1968: as masculine.

“The story starts with Prime Minister Pierre-Elliott Trudeau who, as your newspaper has told you, is irresistibly charmant. By now you know that those admitted to his presence leave forever enchanté. His wit is like champagne, his learning immense. He adores pretty girls. They adore him. His overpowering masculinity may well destroy the Women’s Liberation Front.”

Again, in 2012, as in ’68, all question of the Trudeaus’ support of Communism was either stifled by the press ignoring it, or countered in advance by unexpected apologists. Stang records the bizarre press-laundering of Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s Communist views and background in his 1968 run for the Prime Minister’s Office:

Early in 1968, Pierre announced his availability. Mike [Soviet agent and prime minister, Lester Pearson] dropped the word that Pierre was his choice. And suddenly, with the precision of the New York Philharmonic, the Canadian Press began to sell Pierre to the people. His Communist record was simply ignored. Attempts to discuss it were branded as “hate.” Canadian women read instead about his intense masculinity. So blatant was the blackoutof Pierre’s Communist background that the Calgary Herald refused an anti-Trudeau ad composed of passages from his own writings. The Toronto Globe & Mail and the Toronto Star also refused ads to detail his Communist background. And so complete has been the blackout that in January, 1971, former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, of the Progressive Conservatives — who correspond roughly to our Republicans — demanded an investigation of the government-ownedC.B.C. network.

According to Stang, there were “notable exceptions” to the 1968 media blackout of Pierre Trudeau’s blatant Communism. Among them were “Peter Worthington and Lubor Zink of the Toronto Telegram”.

Sad to say, Peter Worthington – who, during Justin Trudeau’s 2013 Liberal leadership campaign was a vigorous 86 year-old-blogger with the Toronto Sun – has been crossed off the list of “exceptions” to the flagrant media cover-up of the pro-Communist Trudeaus.

Sadder still, Worthington became not merely a Trudeau apologist, but a willful subverter, concealing by silence as to the facts, Pierre’s forced march of Canada into North American Soviet Union under an incoming Red World Order. In this way, Worthington cleared the path for Justin to the Canadian Throne.

In the February 26, 2013, Toronto Sun, Worthington baldly declares (without proving it) that so-called “Liberal” Justin, who was then running for the Liberal leadership, is not the (Communist) that Worthington had presumed his father was [Whatever Justin Trudeau is, he isn’t his father“.

Worthington went further:

“It wasn’t Pierre Trudeau’s flamboyant style that was offensive to people like me, it was his policies and ideology that were alien to our traditions and potentially damaging to the country.” [Emphasis added.]

Trudeau didn’t like the military, ducked serving in the Second World War and instead mocked it as a youth of military age. He aligned himself with Marxists, attended a post-war, Soviet-sponsored, so-called economic conference in Moscow for fellow travellers, and then falsely claimed he’d thrown snowballs at Stalin’s statue (in April). [More emphasis.]

(That latter story is the source of the domain name, NoSnowinMoscow.com.)

He revered Mao Tse-tung (now called Mao Zedong), admired Castro, felt the KGB was similar to the RCMP, and he seemed to reject the overwhelming evidence that the Soviet Union was obsessed with world domination and with subverting democracies.

Worthington says the “economic conference” in Moscow in 1952 was “Soviet sponsored”. He says Trudeau merely “attended” that conference as a “fellow traveller”. Anti-communist Alan Stang in 1971 is more clear. Stang revealed that Trudeau led a Communist delegation at Moscow, all expenses paid by Canadian Communist Party nickel. Quebec historian Robert Rumilly has colorfully dubbed Pierre a “pilgrim of Moscow“.

“Pierre apparently had developed a taste for leading delegations to Communist countries. In 1960 he led another — to Communist China. He participated in a Communist “victory celebration.” He met his idol, Mao Tse-tung. He collaborated on a book called Two Innocents In Red China. (Toronto, Oxford University Press, 1968.)”

There is a big difference between being a “fellow traveller”, or a curious inquirer, and in fact leading Communist delegations at Moscow and in newly conquered Red China.

Cuban President Fidel Castro an Pierre and Margaret Trudeau look over a photo album during their state visit to Cuba in this January, 1976 photo (CP)

Pierre Merely “admired Castro”?

The entire Trudeau family adopted Cuba’s Red Butcher as their “faithful friend”. The entire Trudeau family are Red shills and useful idiots.

“The Last Days of the Patriarch” by Alexandre Trudeau illustrates the intimate, bizarre relationship of the whole Trudeau clan with a Communist dictator. Justin’s brother, Alexandre, unselfconsciously reveals the depth and effects of that relationship in his heart-felt elegy in 2006 to Castro which he penned in English for Peter Worthington’s own Toronto Sun, and in French for La Presse.

The occasion was the birthday of dictator, Fidel Castro, who had turned 80 and transferred his responsibilities to his brother, Vice-President Raúl Castro. (Raúl assumed the full presidency in 2008.)

The personal friendship of Pierre Trudeau and of his wife and three sons with Fidel Castro, is politically problematic. What, precisely, was the effect on Justin Trudeau of this close personal family relationship with Castro?

One son (the late Micha) was a personal favorite of Castro’s; the other son — Alexandre — is clearly under the Castro spell. The mother who raised her sons to adore Fidel, had herself declared that Castro was the ‘sexiest man alive’. Add to this that the mother’s mental instability is well known.

Alexandre’s 2006 article is not only remarkable for its lack of normal moral discernment, but for the apparently thorough Communist brainwashing of its author that it reveals. Responsible journalists should be questioning the frame of mind of the author’s brother, the Liberal candidate for Prime Minister in the upcoming October 2015 (de facto) federal elections, Justin Trudeau.

Responsible journalists should be questioning the frame of mind of Liberal candidate for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, raised by Castro acolytes

Raised in the same environment, with the same special Cuban friend, by two parents who uncritically adored Castro, Justin — a man with no particular accomplishments but his ability to spend his father’s money — would like to be Prime Minister of Canada.

To that end, in the February 26, 2013 Toronto Sun, journalist Peter Worthington concluded, while offering no proof:

“Whatever Justin Trudeau is, he isn’t his father“.

Further on, Worthington finishes: “The fact that Justin is likely to be Liberal leader come April 14 (2013) reflects poorly on the lack of potential leaders in that party. But the country already knows that!”

Worthington says that Pierre Trudeau was only “potentially damaging” to Canada. He thus ignores a mountain of discoverable facts which indicate that Prime Minister Justin would scale the Canadian heights in time to complete his father’s work of destroying Canada culturally, politically, and constitutionally for Pierre’s goal of a regional union under a one-world government.

Fact #1: Secession is a Communist tool for restructuring power in target countries

Pierre Trudeau in fact led the preparations for the 1980 Quebec referendum to “secede” from the Prime Minister’s Office, with his Communist pal, René Lévesque, stepping in tune. (The “secession” of Quebec was intended to facilitate the Communist restructuring of all of Canada by “negotiation” of Communist Lévesque with Communist Trudeau – two Red moles working together at two different levels where each had seized government outside the law, as will be clear below.)

Sshhhh!

This is not secret information. In the multi-volume set, Reports on Separatism1, hard-bound in university libraries, we read that in 1977:

“The overriding theme of the speech was a call for Quebec to come to a final decision now, after 20 years of uncertainty about its national identity. “The choice must be definitive and final. If the referendum is lost, it should not be reopened for 15 years,” Mr. Trudeau said.

“It’s not only exciting, it’s a challenge,” he said. “What is not possible is to constantly remain indecisive, to constantly be afraid to make a choice because then others will make it for us.

“Let us demand of our provincial politicians, and of our federal politicians, that the choices be put before us soon, very soon.”

There are no “choices”. The Constitution forbids “choices” and establishes permanent unity in Canada (more clear below in regard to the Long Title, Crown, etc. of the Constitution).

“we have failed to mobilize adequately the full support of our electorates for the construction of a new world order.”

New World Order is Communist terminology.

At page 4904, speaking of René Lévesque’s veiled Communist Parti Québécois – which had seized power “democratically” (but nonetheless subversively, its very platform of secession negating and proving the invalidity of every last oath among these Red usurpers in the Quebec Legislature) Trudeau tells America and the world:

“I am confident it can be done. I say to you with all the certainty I can command that Canada’s unity will not be fractured. Revisions will take place. Accommodations will be made; We shall succeed.”

“I can command”: this Communist infiltrator placed himself above the Constitution of Canada, claiming unlimited, arbitrary power to destroy it. Indeed, in 1982, he took major step one, towards doing so. Read: Patriation and Legitimacy of the Canadian Constitution. A fellow conspirator of Trudeau’s publicly confesses in a pair of Cronkite Lectures that the so-called “patriation” was not legal, but a coup d’état.

In other words, Communist Pierre was “confident” that Canada would be restructured after a “Yes” in the upcoming 1980 unlawful, unconstitutional, impossible referendum to “secede”.

The notion of a Planhas been tossed around in Quebec. Since 1961, in one form or another, the elaboration of a development plan remained an objective for successive governments, except for the last which finally abandoned the idea. One can just as well understand the initial infatuation with planning as the disenchantment which followed.

Secondly, the manifesto explains the demand of these veiled Communists for the “sovereignty” of Quebec: (all the powers to construct a plan):

What is revealed by this experiment of the Sixties, is that without the necessary instruments, a Plan will never be anything but a more or less inadequate study, presented more or less well, but rigorously platonic. The missing instruments are precisely those which result from sovereignty. As long as Quebec is not independent, as long as it does not possess all the fiscal, legislative and mobilizing powers of a Sovereign state, to wave the banner of planning is at best the expression of a great lack of guile, or at worst, a fairly cheap way to neutralize a growing desire for participation.

If you thought Quebec was trying to secede to protect French-Canadian language, culture and ethnicity, you were wrong. The self-serving Reds, however, have used that fiction as their battle-cry in a bid to destroy Canada for Communism.

Summary: the reason for the “secession” of Quebec is to seize the powers of the Parliament of Canada, to use them in constructing a communist PLAN.

Communist Voting (courtesy of Freaking News.com) 2

Yet, here we have Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the 1977 Congressional Recordpublicly assuring the world that Canada will, indeed, be “restructured,” supposedly to save its “unity”. The supposition being not that there is a provincial “power” to “secede”, but that in blatant defiance of the clear constitutional denial of such a power to both levels of government – a denial of secession, a denial of a federal power to allow it – the act will be consummated nonetheless on the backs of the electorate, conscripted to vote “democratically”, thus allowing the Reds to dismantle Canada.

Said Trudeau in the same Congressional Record:

Problems of this magnitude cannot be wished away. They can be solved, however, by the institutions we have created for our own governance. Those institutions belong to all Canadians, to me as a Quebecker as much as to my fellow citizens from the other provinces. And because those institutions are democratically structured, because their members are freely elected, they are capable of reflecting changes and of responding to the popular will.

Slight correction to Prime Minister Trudeau: the “members” of provincial and federal legislatures are not in office simply by means of the popular vote, i.e., “freely elected”. The “democratic” vote is not sufficient to show a Member to his seat. No duly “elected” Member can sit and vote laws in Parliament or in a Province without a valid oath of allegiance:

128. Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shallbefore taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person Authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; and every Member of the Senate of Canada and every Member of the Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his Seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General, or some other Person authorized by him, the Declaration of Qualification contained in the same Schedule.
Source: The British North America Act, 1867; 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3.

Nor is the oath of allegiance a “technicality”, as Marxist-Leninist Maoist Gilles Duceppe, for one, alleged while publicly washing his hands of it in a ceremony at Hull, Quebec, in 1990. In the United Kingdom – whence Canada’s Constitution comes –

Wharton’s is a reference cited by the judiciary in court adjudications. And look who’s being punished with “penal servitude”! The person foolish enough to depose (swear in) an obvious liar, because it makes that person and the government a party to perjury.

A false oath is perjury. This legal and constitutional fact, that some people cannot be sworn in, was evidenced by precedent in the British case of Clarke v. Bradlaugh, 7 Q. B. D. 38. The British House of Commons quite correctly refused to allow Mr. Bradlaugh, who had been “democratically” elected, to take the oath, because he manifestly could not take it, his being in conflict with the law of that time.

On the first day of the session of 1883, the British Attorney-General gave notice of a Bill to amend the The Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, 29 Vict. c. 19 to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to be sworn by making an affirmation of allegiance. But on 3 May 1883, that bill was rejected by the Commons by three votes. An Oaths Act entitling persons who professed no religious beliefs, or who even might be atheists, to be sworn by solemn affirmation, was finally passed in 1888 (51 & 52 Vic c 46).

Can anyone tell us when the constitutional oath of allegiance in the Fifth Schedule to the British North America Act, 1867, was amended to allow Communists to sit and vote laws for Canada, when their obvious allegiance is to Moscow? And their publicly stated aim is to dismantle Canada in contempt of the Constitution?

The unlawful seizure of a government, by swearing in, for example, hordes of people of all political stripes who do not and cannot bear true allegiance, is a form of coup d’état. In such a case, Parliament is not duly constituted. As such, it is not Parliament but some other entity usurping the role. Moreover, the issue is legal, not political.

It is public knowledge that the PQ Reds intend to dismantle Canada; they therefore were lying in 1970 when “sworn in” and again in 1976, and every time thereafter. It is unmistakable from their platform of “secession” and of restructuring Canada, that they seized power in Quebec outside the Constitution.

Trudeau’s collaboration with, and his blatant federal leadership and encouragement of the Communist Parti Québécois set up by him to allow him to dismantle Canada proves that the Government of Canada had been seized outside the law by elite insurgents, themselves under “unlawful oaths”.

They, too, therefore had no right to sit and vote, no right to form a federal government, no right to pass acts in the Parliamentary Legislature of Canada. All their acts are void, because all their oaths are void.

In the La Presse newspaper of Wednesday, 15 August 1990 at page B1 in the National section, in an article entitled “[Translation: Swearing allegiance to the Queen is ‘a technicality’ he (Duceppe) says”]:

“La Presse spoke with an historian from the University of Ottawa who was then the author of a volume on nationalist movements in Quebec. The historian, Mr.Michael Behiels, is reported to have said that the oath presents an obvious conflict for anyone who promotes independence.

“One cannot profess to serve the State while at the same time trying to dismantle the State” said Behiels. “It’s a contradiction.”

Mr. Behiels is right. Moreover, rules of interpretation exist which permit a competent court to show the door to anyone who has presumed to sit and legislate for Canada or a Province without a valid oath. No member of a federal or provincial legislature, no group of such members, nor even an entire legislative assembly composed of traitors, has any constitutional powers beyond those announced in the Constitution. There is no discretion, no privilege, and no inherent power to conduct themselves in a manner inconsistent with the constitutional functions of the legislative and governmental bodies created by the Constitution. All such activity proves void oaths, as grounds to judicially remove these Red usurpers.

It is the OATH which entrenches and protects Parliament and the Constitution.

Communists cannot swear a valid one.

Let’s have another example of the commonplace truth about the legal effect of the oath. In the Indian case of Golak Nath & ors vs. State of Punjab & Anrs, AIR 1967 SC 1643, W.P. No. 153 of 1966, decided on 27-02-1967, AIR 1967 SC 1643, Chief Justice Subba Rao, writing for an extended bench, said:

“Parliament today is not the constituent body as the constituent assembly was but a constituted body which must bear true allegianceto the Constitution as by lawestablished.”

In the same case at 1655-1656, Chief Justice Rao said:

“Every institution or political party that functions under the Constitution must accept it: otherwise, it has no place under the Constitution.”

In other words, the oath requires the submission of every elected Member to the Constitution; and thus to the limits on action imposed by the Constitution.

Consequently, the Parti Québécois “has no place under the Constitution” of Canada.

Neither have the pro-Soviet Liberals, the Red Greens, the “Progressive” Conservatives, the Marxist NDP, the Bloc (federal counterpart of the Communist Parti Québécois), the CAQ or any of the half-dozen other socialist and “separatist” parties that now clutter the federal and provincial hustings. Because they all support either dismantling Canada for Quebec “independence” (Communism), and/or merging Canada into the North American (Communist) Regional Union — underway, now.

The Constitutional Oath of Allegiance and Limits on Action

In the lawful Constitution of 1867, specific limits on action are levied by the federal-provincial division of powers; and overall limits are imposed with respect to the statutory purpose of Confederation. These overall limits are blatantly evident in the Long Title of the British North America Act, 1867, and in the interpretive Preamble. The Long Title of an act, including the Constitution, is used to determine the statute’s purpose, so that courts rule in accordance. Canada’s Long Title, similar to the famed “supremacy clause” at Article VI of the US Constitution. reads as follows:

An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposesconnected therewith

“THIS UNION”, not any other UNION, nor DISUNION, is what the Long Title says.

“The British North America Act, 1867” is merely the short title of the Constitution; whereas the Long Title embodies clear legal restraints: no “purpose” contrary to the Union established in 1867, i.e., not “connected therewith,” can be lawfully entertained by either federal or provincial governments.

The Long Title excludes expressly all activity contrary to the Union created in 1867. To be precise, two things in particular are excluded by the British North American Union: secession of any part of Canada, and annexation of Canada into a differentunion.

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous: 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada

Yet, for decades, Canadians have been caught in a straight jacket outside the lawful Constitution by one de facto government after another since Trudeau. All of them are allowing, authorizing, and organizing campaigns for referendums by the Communist Parti Québécois to dismantle Canada east-west; while purporting to sign “treaties” such as NAFTA, designed to “deep integrate” Canada into the USA and Mexico, north-south, obviously forming a regional union.

The Long Title of 1867 is confirmed by the “Declaration of Union” (a statutory declaration is a statement of effective law) at section 3 of the Constitution:

“3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.”

Our interpretive preamble of 1867 was often called in aid, correctly, by our perceptive judiciary. (But, that was long before the Soviet invasion of our institutions.) The opening paragraph of the Preamble states:

“WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom”

The United Kingdom’s Constitution is unitary. The United Kingdom is a unitary state. The British Crown shared with Canada is unitary. Kingship in the British Constitution on which ours is based is unitary. Therefore, in 1867, a unique merger of two leading systems took place, and in consequence: a unitary Crown reigns above an indivisible (unitary) federal state in Canada. This is not an accident; it was planned that way by the statesmen who founded Canada.

“the Committee encouraged René Lévesque and his sympathisers within and outside the Liberal Party of Québec to set up a distinct party, which would be soundly defeated in an electoral showdown.”

“Electoral showdown” obviously means referendum, the tool that has been used by the Parti Québécois from the time of its full usurpation under false oaths of the powers of government in Quebec.

Frénette, cited again by Lisée in the same interview, identified three members of the “Committee” that urged Lévesque to set up the Parti Québécois, whose 1972 manifesto (sidebar) clearly reveals it to be a Communist party. Said Frénette:

“Within the [federal] Liberal Party – a secret committee has been established in order to undo separatism. The Committee, which includes federal ministers from Québec such as [Jean] Marchand, [Pierre Elliott] Trudeau and [Maurice] Sauvé, has adopted a multi-volleyed plan which for the moment is working as anticipated.” Before being recruited by Paul Desmarais, Frénette was the assistant to Minister Sauvé.

Pay attention! Their “multi-volleyed plan” to “undo separatism” was to CREATE A COMMUNIST PARTY which would hold repeated public votes to DESTROY CANADA.

If Pierre Elliott Trudeau was not a Communist, and if, as Worthington indemnifies in the Toronto Sun in 2013, Trudeau did not “damage” Canada, then how did Red Mole Pierre happen to sit on a secret Committee advocating the set-up of a COMMUNIST PARTY in Quebec whose mandate was and is today to dismantle Canada for refederation on the model of the New European Soviet forming across the Atlantic?

This RED REGION in place of Confederation is what Communist Trudeau means when he tells the Jimmy Carter Congress in 1977:

“I am confident it can be done. I say to you with all the certainty I can command that Canada’s unity will not be fractured. Revisions will take place. Accommodations will be made; We shall succeed.”

That is the FRAUD being sold to Canadians as maintaining “Canadian unity“: refederation as a “compromise” after a “Yes” in a referendum conducted by the Communist Parti Québécois, launched by Communist Lévesque in 1968 on orders of Red Mole Trudeau and his Communist friends on the secret committee of Power Corporation.

North AmericanSoviet Union

Reisman, who, along with his colleagues all have hijacked the federal Parliament, thus acknowledges precisely what the Parti Quebecois is really planning. Not “secession”, but secession as a tool to refederate Canada on the Red European Prototype. The only reason for the initial “secession” is to create international personality for the Province, enabling it to harness the “rest of Canada” into treaties modeled on those used to merge Europe, and necessary to form this top-most part of the North American Soviet Union. A treaty cannot be signed without a national existence, which alone confers a treaty power.

The conclusion is inescapable that the Quebec referendums of 1980 and 1995 were initiated not by life-long Communist René Lévesque – who is nothing but a tool and a front man – but by Communist agent Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his fellow Federal Reds.

Fact #3: The North American Union is modeled on the European Community Formula used by Trudeau-Marchand-Sauvé-Lévesque and Power Corporation to set up a Communist state of Quebec linked to Canada

When Gorbachev visited London briefly, for a day, on the 23rd of March, 2000 – and, during that visit he made a statement which – I repeat it at every opportunity – he acknowledged and stated that the European Union is the “New European Soviet”; and I quote.

The organism under construction in North America via “trade” deals and the post-9/11 SPP is a North American equivalent of the “New European Soviet“.

The “North American Union”, called also the “North American Community”, has its direct precursor is the “Canadian Union”, also called the “Canadian Community”, aimed at by the Communist Parti Québécois and planned years before the latter’s founding.

This aim is clear from a public statement of René Lévesque conveyed by a Montreal Gazette reporter in December 1964, one month after Lévesque had appeared on CBC French television calling for the “fundamental” “RESTRUCTURING … of this whole country we call Canada“.

“This country, which could be calledThe Canadian Union“

In audio Episode 5 of “Du PLQ au PQ” (Translation: From the Quebec Liberal Party to the Parti Québécois), Montreal Gazette reporter, Robert McKenzie, told Radio-Canada:

[Translation:] “I received a call from someone: ‘Go to the Liberal Party meeting in Lévesque’s riding tonight (18 September 1967), something major will happen, he’s going to take a stand.” I arrive. There are about 300 people. … I looked at the text for a long time, and finally, he (René Lévesque) concluded with these words:

“This country which could be called The Canadian Union.

It finished just like that: “which could be called The Canadian Union.”

The text McKenzie was reading was possibly Lévesque’s manifesto entitled Pour un Québec souverain dans une nouvelle union canadienne (Translation: For A Sovereign Quebec in a New Canadian Union).

Levesque’s 1967 demand for a new “Canadian Union” precedes the formation of the European Union by approximately fifteen years. The European Union began as a Coal and Steel “Community”, which became an “Economic Community”. The nations of Europe were once independent. They were not federal. Canada is federal. The aim appears to have been to push federal Canada directly into the “EU” stage by “negotiation” following a “Yes” in a referendum. Certainly, the night before the illegal 1980 referendum, Pierre Trudeau offered this to Lévesque3; and therefore, the Red negotiations would not have been for less than this: a full-blown Red refederation of Canada with an EU-style politburo on the Soviet model where unelected bureaucrats, beyond dismissal by the electorate, make most of the laws for the formerly sovereign European nations.

“not only associate states but even—do you remember, a sort of new Canadian community.”

Throughout the day René Lévesque had not intervened in the debate, saving his speech to the end. […]

“We have, for all intents and purposes, gone back to our roots,” he said. That is to say that we are still, as we have been since the begining, sovereignists, but with the realism that the special situation that history and geography have made in Quebec demands. It is not for nothing that from the beginning, seventeen years ago, we evoked not only associate states, but evennbsp;– do you remember, a sort of newCanadian community.” [Emphases added.]

Building A North American Community (BANC) — Restructuring North America into the Soviet regional system, eliminating the nations of Canada, USA and Mexico.

Lévesque invoked not only the term “associate states” (origin of the term “Sovereignty Association”) and referring to the European Economic Community (EEC), but also both the “Canadian Union” and the “Canadian Community“. Community is therefore not a mere synonym for Union.

What did the word “Community” mean to Communist René Lévesque, selected by a secret committee of “Liberals” at Power Corporation in 1967 (including Pierre Elliott Trudeau) to organize and lead the veiled Communist Parti Québécois?

In the French book, René Lévesque, un enfant du siècle (1922-1960), a biography of René Lévesque byPierre Godin, published by Boréal on 15 November 1994 [ISBN 9782890526419], we learn at page 80 that René Lévesque signed his own name under his father’s name on the top right corner of the cover of a book annotated by his father (who was a Communist). René Lévesque, we are told, will always retain certain of these annotations, chief among them:

“Do not confuse physical freedom with moral freedom. One has the physical freedom to do evil.” — “To equality of capacity, equality of right.” — Community, i.e., all people taken together. Communism does not admit civil authority.”

The notion of a dictatorship of the proletariat (all people governing together) is an impractical fantasy. But, for René Lévesque, all people taken together were a “Community” which, for him, represented Communism, which defies constituted authority. Therefore, when he spoke of a “Canadian Community” formed within a new “Canadian Union“, Lévesque had to mean a Communist Community; which is proved by the fact that the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois is Communist. Read my exclusive English translation of the CBC Radio Roundtable of 1972 discussing the manifesto.

NSIM Free Public Service Announcement No. 1

Knowing that the Parti Québécois is Communist; and that all its leaders have necessarily been Communist, we therefore know that Pierre-Marc Johnson, who succeeded Lévesque as leader of the Parti Québécois, and who occupied the office of Premier of Quebec, was therefore also a Communist. He led a party that sought a Communist state of Quebec, and a new “Canadian Community” and a new “Canadian Union“. Pierre-Marc Johnson signed the 2005 plan of the corporate-fascist Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) sponsored by the Marxist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the USA, to form a North American Community comprised of Canada, the USA and Mexico; also known as the North American Union.

Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald (Circa 1983): The Council on Foreign Relations is seeking Regional Union and One-World Government

“But, as a member of Congress, I have seen the massive, powerful groups in Washington at work on a daily basis. And I have seen national groups, in their writings and activities and their memberships and members, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission and others, which are working to transfer our national sovereignty into some type of regional government on the road to a global, one-world governmental structure.”

The dictatorship of the proletariat is obviously impractical. But the dictatorship of the international bankers and their clients, the multinational corporations apparently is not.

Peter Worthingon, Toronto Sun founder and journalist

All the information on the North American Union was on the table for journalist Peter Worthington for about a decade before he died. And yet, rather than warn us, he kept quiet. And when the Communist father of anti-nationalist Justin Trudeau needed white-washing to assure the rise of the son to finish his father’s work, Worthington ignored the impending termination of Canada initiated by Pierre Trudeau, and exonerated the Communist.

As if Canada is not on the brink of dissolution into a Communist regional union (for which purpose Trudeau himself ordered Lévesque to set up the Communist PQ so that he could “negotiate” with it to dismantle the country.)

His genetic descendent will apparently inherit that opportunity.

Conclusion

And yet, journalist Peter Worthington (you know, one of those people who are supposed to tell us the facts), in 2012, publicly absolved Pierre Elliott Trudeau by declaring that “his policies and ideology that were alien to our traditions” were only “potentially damaging to the country”.

In other words, looking back on over four decades of criminal subversion, including:

(a) two divisive and illegal referendums (1980, 1995) whose real purpose was to create a COMMUNIST State of Quebec, and which damaged the economy, cost jobs and sent families flying across the continent to escape the potential aftermath;

(b) the ongoing erosion of Canada instituted by Trudeau’s co-creation of the Communist Parti Québécois to dismantle Canada;

(c) and all this while we are now on the brink of the final dismantling for annexation due to Trudeau’s continental “policy” of north-south integration through so-called “trade deals” with Red friends in America such as Red Ronnie (i.e, Communist Ronald Reagan, who was groomed by General Electric, of the infamous Broadway triangle, to merely appear conservative) …

… according to Worthington, no damage whatsoever was done to Canada by our de facto, not de jure, Communist prime minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

2 We have Communist Voting in Canada. For real. It’s called the Quebec referendums. The Reds call it “democratic”, but the purpose of the vote, a COMMUNIST state of Quebec, has never been mentioned in the QUESTION. And, certainly, the “secession bench” of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 never mentioned it. Isn’t that odd? And it doesn’t come up in the so-called Clarity Act.

And, if you do not eventually vote YES here in Canada, as required, there is always the underlying threat that FLQ-style violence may return. After all, in 1964, René Lévesque was reported in the daily press as having told two different groups of high-school students that if the “rest of Canada” refuses to give Quebec “associate state” status, the children could resort to “guns and dynamite”. So, the guy in the picture with the gun (at left), and the basket piled with YES votes beside the empty NO basket — that’s how we do it here in Canada, too. (In fact, there’s good reason to believe the Communists STUFF the “YES” vote. But that’ll be another post.)

The cartoon-girl is supposed to be me, but actually, I had curly hair. I just couldn’t draw curls in Windows Paint to save my life. And if my grandmother had seen that short red dress, she’d have been letting the hem down overnight and sneak it back into my closet before the morning. But the house and the school are kinda cute, very close to the real things where I grew up and where

I studied for the first seven years of school at Saint Augustine’s of Canterbury. The school was right next door to our Catholic church of the same name, whose bells could be heard ten blocks away in bed, every Sunday morning.

I wrote the script and drew the initial cartoon slides in 2011, intending to make a video. Then my Dell D600 hard drive crashed.

I have learned the hard way not to entrust my hard drives to repair technicians. They have an unfortunate habit of deleting the contents. (Especially when I pay them using my bank card, which is being traced.)

I therefore had to learn (a) to repair my own D600 with second-hand spare parts and “How To” videos from YouTube, (b) instal Windows XP Pro SP3, (c) configure all my own programs, and finally, (d) use various kinds of recovery software to rescue my files from crashed hard drives.

It took me until late in 2013 to recover the drive that crashed in 2011. Among the treasures that I dredged back up was this old, incomplete animated video, a Child’s View of Trudeau.

Only two minutes of the video had been finished out of the 8-10 minutes planned. It would take too long right now to finish it, so pardon me if I grab a few slides to illustrate the gist, and give you the script, below.

Animation and cartoons aside, this is a real story about The Real Pierre Elliott Trudeau — A Child’s View in Retrospect.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Story

When I was about 12 or 14 years old, and home from school for the afternoon, I switched on our old black and white floor-model TV, and there was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

This would be around 1965-1967. Trudeau was not yet Prime Minister. As I was not a political kid, I couldn’t tell you what he was at the time. But, from my reading today, I would say that during that broadcast, he had probably already been recruited by Soviet spy, Prime Minister Lester Pearson, and had been or would soon be elected to Parliament as a so-called “Liberal” and enter Pearson’s cabinet.

This was on channel 6 or 12 (CBC or CTV in Montreal, Canada). We had rabbit ears and picked up only channels 2 and 10 (which were French), and 6, 12, 3 and 5 (which were English; but 3 and 5 were American, ABC and NBC).

So, I suspect that Trudeau was on channel 6 at the time, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a national “news” and entertainment network formed by federal statute, the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936 and By-Laws. (In other words, looking back, this was Canada’s Pravda.)

So, there was Trudeau in a suit being interviewed. He was describing his ideal society. And, again, looking back, he must have been testing the waters; for, as he never openly discussed it again, in these terms, he must have decided that viewer response was not sufficiently favorable to openly inflict Communism on Canada.

I know I remember this pretty well, because after the show, I quickly descended the basement stairs of our wholly-owned non-mortgaged duplex at 2264 Hingston Avenue in NDG to the old Underwood manual typewriter, and I wrote a funny story about Trudeau’s ideal society.

I called my story “CLANADA”, with an “L” in it; that’s not a typo.

However, back to Trudeau — and keep in mind, I could write this as an affidavit.

In Trudeau’s ideal society, there would be no private property. You would own nothing. You would not even own the chair you sat in to watch Mr. Trudeau on television. And obviously, you would not own the television.

Because, said Trudeau, there would be no stores. You could not buy things any more. Instead, you would go to a central warehouse run by the government where you would receive all you need, which is to say, all that government decided you need. You would exchange a chit for this, which the government had issued.

For example, said Trudeau, in this warehouse there would be only a few models of couches, beds and chairs, and a limited assortment of pictures to put on your wall. The purpose of this limitation in style and variety was “equality”. Said Trudeau, people would be “equal” only if they all owned nothing and had the mere use of pretty much the same “things”.

Keep in mind, this is coming from a man who when he finally left the home owned by his mother, bought himself a mansion which he later fitted with an indoor swimming pool. Newspaper columnist Peter Worthington suspected the pool was at Canadian taxpayers’ expense, although it was said to have been a gift of wealthy businessmen. (If the latter is true, perhaps the wealthy capitalists were “equalizing” one of their own with themselves.) Therefore, Mr. Trudeau, his wife and his own children, did not have to mingle with the “equal” people at the low-brow community swimming pool.

Mr. Trudeau certainly did not live the lifestyle he recommended for others.

One would therefore have to think that Trudeau did not consider himself “equal” to others. Apparently, in his ideal society, he would be “more equal” — as no doubt would friends of his who also lived up the hill in pool-equipped mansions, or in posh Westmount homes.

As a kid, I didn’t know what Communism was, so I really just thought Trudeau was crazy.

I snorted and chuckled with amusement as I banged out my child’s satire of the great man’s views for Canada on my grandfather’s old Underwood — which in Trudeau’s ideal world, I would not have the use of, due to abolition of inheritance, and more importantly, laws against criticizing Communism. (As a child-intellectual with all the wrong views, I’d have been quickly sent for “re-education”. But I know for sure, it wouldn’t have worked. I’d have ended up, like Vladimir Bukovsky, in lunatic asylums for penning politically incorrect views about the North American Union, and slurring the Canadian Commisars.)

The story I wrote was of Trudeau’s ideal country, where you didn’t even own the bed you slept in.

Moreover, in my story, you had to share your bed with a neighbour, because it rolled through the wall in the morning, into the next apartment, to be slept in by someone else coming home from his shift at the workplace.

I no longer have a copy of that story, and I can’t remember any more details. But, obviously, today, I know for sure that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was a Communist. Which is to say, he merely advocated Communism for the rest of us. (It just took Alan Stang to remind me.)

– 30 –

UPDATE 26 November 2015: Researchers can now DOWNLOAD files of all chapters of the 1972 Parti Québécois Manifesto for a Communist State of Quebec, that I have translated into English to date. That is 90% of it, more than is currently posted online in html. This links expires in 5 days from 26 Nov 2015. I will try to replace it as necessary:

I launched the present web site, “No Snow in Moscow.com” to feature an April 1972 extended article in American Opinion (now called The New American) by anti-Communist Christian, Alan Stang.

In that April 1971 piece — in light of the revelations he is about to make concerning Pearson and Trudeau being Communists (I already knew about Pearson), and about Trudeau’s appointing Soviet agents to high offices in Canada– Stang appeals to Canadians and Americans to work together to defeat Communism:

“The situation has now been simplified. There is only one thing anyone has time to know: The events of last year prove that if enough Canadians, with the help of enough Americans, don’t act soon enough to prevent it, Canada in a very short time will be a totalitarian dictatorship of the kind in Cuba.”

I can hear the titters now. “Oh what a fool he was! 42 years later, Canada is still not a Cuban-style dictatorship! Canada was never under any threat from the Communists.”

Those titters are wrong.

Stang merely undershot the Communists’ real target when he said Canada would become a Communist dictatorship.

It clearly anticipates new regional structures forming across the planet, in particular for “security” purposes. This is very clear from its sections 52 et seq.:

“1. Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.”

Note the words “the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security”.

Those words should make it clear to anyone who does not think there is no such thing as “conspiracy,” that 9/11 and the consequent Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), which is a “response” to it, and the North American Union to come from the SPP, fit right into the UN’s provisions for a regional “security” apparatus.

In essence, 9/11 does for North America what WWI and WWII did for Europe: it gives Canadians and Americans an excuse to throw our hands up, put our guns down, and surrender to regional union under the Communist UN.

9/11 and an eternal, Orwellian “War on Terror” is North America’s answer to an embarrassing lack of full-scale warfare on this continent.

9/11 is our impetus for joining the Communist UN’s “One World or None” club. Alan Gotlieb did say that “nobody had thought of” a North American Union until after 9/11, which was the “provocative agent” for NAU.

Gotlieb was lying; Henry Kissinger “thought of it in 1993” but at least a glimmer of truth emerges from Gotlieb’s lie: it connects 9/11 directly to Communist regional union in America under Chapter VIII, s. 52 et seq. of the Charter of the Communist U.N.

Moreover, the U.N., as future world government over continental and hemispheric regions, is obviously the primary beneficiary of the creation of such regions. It is the main beneficiary of events that are used to stimulate (or I should say, “simulate”) national destabilization,the 2009 case of Honduras being one good example. The Castro-founded Front de libération du Québec (FLQ; English: Quebec Liberation Front) being another. And 9/11 being the biggest and most recent in North America.

We are being attacked to force us into the Trojan Horse Communist U.N., and then the trap slams shut.

In other words, the UN and its Charter are weapons of warfare, in direct conflict of interest with the national sovereignty, self-defense, internal cohesion, culture and constitutional self-determination of any and all of its member nations.

It didn’t just start with 9/11

A true chronology of the North American Union stretches back much farther than 9/11 in 2001, or the 2005 model parliament for North America launched in Canada’s Senate chamber. I won’t recite the details here, but continental union was well underway before WWII.

In fact, as one example, I would say that Canada’s 1931 Statute of Westminster, which conferred legal independence upon the colony of Canada, was itself a major step towards North American Union. Continental union could not be done without cutting Canada’s UK apron strings. (Continental union cannot be done, anyway, because it is unconstitutional for Canada.)

When that Statute supposedly set Canada “free” of UK, the economic focus apparently also shifted from trade with UK to trade with the USA. This was an early step toward North American, continental integration.

The Communists who took Canada — and they did take it, Stang is right when he reports “She has already fallen” — were after a North American Union.

They were after the North American region, which is to say, they were aiming at a Communist regional union under the Communist UN as world government.

Yesterday, while researching one of Trudeau’s appointed fellow Communists, Jean-Louis Gagnon of Information Canada, I stumbled over an item in the April 27th, 1972 edition of the Ottawa Citizen newspaper. It also appeared in the Windsor Star the day before.

Just one year after the Stang piece, the John Birch Society was going to set up a Canadian branch and schedule public lectures — supposedly to wake up Canadians.

I don’t’ know what happened to JBS Canada, if they finally got set up or not, or gave up on the prospect of waking Canadians up to Communism. They don’t seem to be here now, and I’ve searched google a couple of times. The U.S. JBS site seems to have no link to a Canadian branch.

I wonder if the 1971 Stang article inspired an attempt to set up JBS in Canada, or if it was part of a planned expansion into Canada, to pave the way for it. It would be interesting to know how the Birchers came and went.

Remember, this is one year after the date that Stang published in American Opinion: “Canada – How The Communists Took Control“.

Here’s the article:

Birchers organizing in Canada

TORONTO (CP) — The United States-based John Birch Society is beginning an organizational drive in Canada with a series of publ­ic lectures in local high schools next week, the anti-Communist group said in a statement Wednesday.

Lt. Col. Gordon Jack Mohr, U.S. Army, retired

The ultra-conservative organization with headquar­ters in Belmont, Mass., said the speaker will be Lt. Col. Jack Mohr, a retired United States Army officer who now is a full-time employee of the society.

The statement described him as “one of America’s most highly-decorated veter­ans of the Korean War”‘ who was captured by the North Koreans.

The statement quotes Col. Mohr as saying the United Nations has “promoted the continued control of Communist dictators, and has now welcomed into its midst the Red Chinese murderers.

Continued membership in this organization will only lead to a complete loss of Canada’s and the United States’ own national will and sovereignty.”

The Globe and Mail says the society has hired a full-time organizer for Canada, William Schreck, 32, a for­mer New Jersey business­man who has been in Toron­to for three months.

“The John Birch Society is doing everything in its power to try to fight evil which is manifested in the Communist conspiracy,” he told the newspaper.

“The manifestations of this conspiracy are as prevalent in Canada as they are in the United States. The problems are entirely the same. The United Nations is a major problem but Cana­dians just don’t understand it. [But] they will after we get through.”

Mr. Schreck told The Globe and Mail the society is primarily concerned with U.S. foreign policy.

“American foreign policy is responsible for virtually everything that is going on in the world today,” he said, adding that a Canadian organization was necessary be­cause Canada was equally threatened by Communist conspiracy.

He said the society’s aims in Canada, as in the U.S., “and everywhere,” was to bring about an era of less government, more responsibility, and with God’s help, a better world.

When I was about 12 or 14 years old, and home from school for the afternoon, I switched on our old black and white floor-model TV, and there was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

This would be around 1965-1967; Trudeau was not yet Prime Minister. As I was not a political kid, I couldn’t tell you what he was at the time. But, from my reading today, I would say that during that broadcast, he had probably already been recruited by Soviet spy, Prime Minister Lester Pearson, and had been or would be soon elected to Parliament as a so-called “Liberal” and enter Pearson’s cabinet.

This was on channel 6 or 12 (CBC or CTV in Montreal, Canada). We had rabbit ears and picked up only channels 2 and 10 (which were French), and 6, 12, 3 and 5 (which were English; but 3 and 5 were American, ABC and NBC).

So, I suspect that Trudeau was on channel 6 at the time, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a national “news” and entertainment network formed by federal statute, the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936 and By-Laws. (In other words, looking back, this was Canada’s Pravda.)

So, there was Trudeau in a suit being interviewed. He was describing his ideal society. And, again, looking back, he must have been testing the waters; for, as he never openly discussed it again, in these terms, he must have decided that viewer response was not sufficiently favorable to openly inflict Communism on Canada.

I know I remember this pretty well, because after the show, I quickly descended the basement stairs of our wholly-owned non-mortgaged duplex at 2264 Hingston Avenue in NDG to the old Underwood manual typewriter, and I wrote a funny story about Trudeau’s ideal society.

I called my story “CLANADA”, with an “L” in it; that’s not a typo.

However, back to Trudeau — and keep in mind, I could write this as an affidavit.

In Trudeau’s ideal society, there would be no private property. You would own nothing. You would not even own the chair you sat in to watch Mr. Trudeau on television. And obviously, you would not own the television.

Because, said Trudeau, there would be no stores. You could not buy things any more. Instead, you would go to a central warehouse run by the government where you would receive all you need, which is to say, all that government decided you need. You would exchange a chit for this, which the government had issued.

For example, said Trudeau, in this warehouse there would be only a few models of couches, beds and chairs, and a limited assortment of pictures to put on your wall. The purpose of this limitation in style and variety was “equality”. Said Trudeau, people would be “equal” only if they all owned nothing and had the mere use of pretty much the same “things”.

Keep in mind, this is coming from a man who when he finally left the home owned by his mother, bought himself a mansion which he later fitted with an indoor swimming pool. Author Peter Worthington suspected the pool was at Canadian taxpayers’ expense, although it was said to have been a gift of wealthy businessmen. (If the latter is true, perhaps the wealthy capitalists were “equalizing” one of their own with themselves.) Therefore, Mr. Trudeau, his wife and his own children, did not have to mingle with the “equal” people at the low-brow community swimming pool.

Mr. Trudeau certainly did not live the lifestyle he recommended for others.

One would therefore have to think that Trudeau did not consider himself “equal” to others. Apparently, in his ideal society, he would be “more equal” — as no doubt would friends of his who also lived up the hill in pool-equipped mansions.

As a kid, I didn’t know what Communism was, so I really just thought Trudeau was crazy.

I snorted and chuckled with amusement as I banged out my child’s satire of the great man’s views for Canada on my grandfather’s old Underwood — which in Trudeau’s ideal world, I would not have the use of, due to abolition of inheritance, and more importantly, laws against criticizing Communism. (As a child-intellectual with all the wrong views, I’d have been quickly sent for “re-education”. But I know for sure, it wouldn’t have worked. I’d have ended up, like Vladimir Bukovsky, in lunatic asylums for penning politically incorrect views about the North American Union, and slurring the Canadian Commisars.)

The story I wrote was of Trudeau’s ideal country, where you didn’t even own the bed you slept in.

Moreover, in my story, you had to share your bed with a neighbour, because it rolled through the wall in the morning, into the next apartment, to be slept in by someone else coming home from his shift at the workplace.

I no longer have a copy of that story, and I can’t remember any more details. But, obviously, today, I know for sure that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was a Communist. Which is to say, he merely advocated Communism for the rest of us. (It just took Alan Stang to remind me.)

Robert Rumilly:
Two important authors on the communist infiltration of Canada are Alan Stang and Robert Rumilly. Please read my exclusive English translation of two chapters from Rumilly's 1956 book The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada (L'Infiltration gauchiste au Canada français).

ANTICOMMUNIST ARCHIVE & STORIES:

EXCLUSIVE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois, calling for a Communist State of Quebec
Segments translated so far:

UPDATE 15 August 2016: 100% complete! First English translation of 1972 PQ manifesto for a Communist State of Quebec. This is what we were really "voting" for in 1980 and 1995. There is more text in the PDF download than is posted online in html: https://www.sendspace.com/file/pgg7mg

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous: 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec